Diaste Posted May 19, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 14 Topic Count: 67 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 6,622 Content Per Day: 2.00 Reputation: 2,365 Days Won: 2 Joined: 03/17/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted May 19, 2016 11 hours ago, douggg said: It doesn't mean that the break up kingdom is in existence when little horn comes to power. It is identifying the region, the territory where his army will wax strong from - which of the former break-up kingdoms - is current day Greece. The vision of the little horn's stopping the daily sacrifice in the text is for the end times. The kingdom he comes from is that of the "transgressors" when they have come to a full - that is, the ten leader form of government of the EU. 8:23 And in the latter time of their kingdom (that of the transgressors), when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. "stand up" is an idiom for prepares to fight, to go to war, to thwart - the Gog/Magog threat on the horizon to invade Israel The verb "is" is a present tense verb. Islam is not a good fit at all. The Mahdi in Islam does not make any claim of being God. So there is no corresponding theology to the man of sin, nor to the beast. It is from the territory of one of the former break up empires, not the greek empire. No, king 7 has not come to power yet. King 7 becomes the beast as King 8. The eighth king it says in the text is of the seven. Nero was the last of the Julio Claudians family. You can read this from Roman Emperors.org site on Nero. I think you don't grasp the concept that the person goes through stages. I think it interesting that many of just continue to repeat what we have learned from end time preachers. I was in the same predicament for quite a few years until I started actually checking out the history. For instance, I looked at the history of the Diadochi and compared it to Dan 11. The reason for this was simple, it was clear that certain chapters of Daniel were a progression from Babylon to the Beast. It was interesting to see some of what Daniel writes about in chapter 11 happened between the warring Diadochi. Since the progression of Daniel shows us the acts of these generals and the lineage of the beast it can be determined from whence the beast cometh. And it ain't Greece. He must hail from the former Seleucid empire. Only the Seleucid Empire had it's capitol in Babylon and ruled in that region. This is where the beast comes from. Not only does Dan 11 show this but so does the Dan 2 statue. The first 3 kingdoms all ruled the same area, the fourth will do the same. That would be Babylon, Persia, Greece and then Islam. Rome did not cover the same area and in fact almost fell to the ruling power of the time, Islam. Islam was the dominant empire in the same region as the Statue Kingdoms and they are in fact the Iron Kingdom. Even if 'is' is present tense that still leaves the question of which one 'is'. Did John pen revelation in 65 AD or 90 AD? Is the 'one is' Nero or Domitian? Most scholars think the 90 AD date is accurate. If that's true then your premise is wrong as there were 12 Caesars before Domitian. I did not say it was from the Greek empire. I said the beast came from one of the divisions of the Greek empire. You said it's going to be Greece in the first sentence of the above quote. Are you saying the transgressors are only the EU? It's can't be China? Or Brazil? Maybe the whole earth are the transgressors? Are you saying that Islam could never be viewed as transgressors and so never could be full of transgressions? What scripture is there that proves the EU is the focus? The EU has many more than 10 leaders. And you're missing the truth. The 10 kings in question have no power but receive power with the beast. So that rules out any current leadership on earth. The scripture says the beast comes first, then the 10 Kings receive power. What do I care about theology? I care about what's written in scripture and history. Theologians can be, and are often, wrong about prophecy. Scripture never errs. I do grasp the concept that you think the person goes through stages. I reject that notion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlindSeeker Posted May 19, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 68 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,031 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 425 Days Won: 5 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted May 19, 2016 3 hours ago, douggg said: No, not one mountain. The seven mountains where the woman sitteth is a reference to Rome - the city of the seven hills. The woman is also said to sit on many waters. So there is the double condition of where the woman sits. imo, the woman pragmatically speaking is the RCC, worldwide in every nation; and her headquarters the Vatican, which Catholics themselves often refer to as "Rome" in reference to the Vatican. The seven kings are tied to that location, Rome. No, it is not a reference to the seven hills of Rome, for this Mystery Babylon goes all the way back to Egypt. Though I do acknowledge Catholicism as part of her… however, clearly by the scripture we can see she has all her whoring daughters dispersed throughout the world as well masquerading as religions of truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlindSeeker Posted May 19, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 68 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,031 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 425 Days Won: 5 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted May 19, 2016 2 hours ago, douggg said: If it were kingdoms in Revelation 17:10, it would have been quiet easy to have written "kingdoms" and not kings. Wow, when you try to over simplify it that way, makes you wonder why God even used the seven-headed, ten horn, seven/ten crowns, beast imagery thing.... By the way, which part of the beast imagery represented the seven kings? Because unless you can show me something, they lack separate prophetic representation they are connected to each of the seven mountains, seven separate mountains. However, I showed you several scriptural witnesses how the Holy Spirit speaking through the prophets repeatedly used "mountains" to reference empires.... yet you dismiss it all as irrelevant in this prophecy… Plus, the ten kings don’t give their “kingdoms” to the beast, they give their “power and strength,” such as giving of their economic and military strength, for their kingdoms stay intact until Jesus comes and destroys them as well. 3 hours ago, douggg said: The other problem is that the heads have "crowns" in Revelation 12, which indicates kings, not kingdoms. Likewise, the ten horns are kings as well, and have crowns in Revelation 13. And in the text of Revelation 17:17 give their "kingdom" singular to the the beast. Which those ten kings, thus, are not of ten kingdoms. The beast in Revelation 12 which represents the Dragon/Satan, though there are ten horns, there are still only seven crowns mentioned. This represents the Dragon/Satan's power over the previous seven and last empire (which obviously is not a monarchal empire/no king). For the beast imagery in Chapter 13 clearly represents the defined 8 th and final empire that is headed for perdition and is controled by the second "other beast coming up out of the earth" which "exerciseth all the power of the first beast (which came up out of the sea) before him," which isn't referred to as a king, even though like you said, "it would have been quiet easy to have written" king if it were a king.... Revelation 13:1 - And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. 2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. Revelation 17:9 - And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains [empires], on which the woman sitteth. 10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. 11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. [kingless empire, for there are only 7 kings mentioned] Concerning the beast in Revelation 13, those ten horns and ten crowns represent God’s power over them to do His will. Revelation 17:16 - And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. 17 .For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
douggg Posted May 19, 2016 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 40 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,143 Content Per Day: 0.47 Reputation: 220 Days Won: 1 Joined: 10/18/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted May 19, 2016 2 hours ago, Diaste said: I think it interesting that many of just continue to repeat what we have learned from end time preachers. I was in the same predicament for quite a few years until I started actually checking out the history. For instance, I looked at the history of the Diadochi and compared it to Dan 11. The reason for this was simple, it was clear that certain chapters of Daniel were a progression from Babylon to the Beast. It was interesting to see some of what Daniel writes about in chapter 11 happened between the warring Diadochi. Since the progression of Daniel shows us the acts of these generals and the lineage of the beast it can be determined from whence the beast cometh. And it ain't Greece. He must hail from the former Seleucid empire. Only the Seleucid Empire had it's capitol in Babylon and ruled in that region. This is where the beast comes from. Not only does Dan 11 show this but so does the Dan 2 statue. The first 3 kingdoms all ruled the same area, the fourth will do the same. That would be Babylon, Persia, Greece and then Islam. Rome did not cover the same area and in fact almost fell to the ruling power of the time, Islam. Islam was the dominant empire in the same region as the Statue Kingdoms and they are in fact the Iron Kingdom. Even if 'is' is present tense that still leaves the question of which one 'is'. Did John pen revelation in 65 AD or 90 AD? Is the 'one is' Nero or Domitian? Most scholars think the 90 AD date is accurate. If that's true then your premise is wrong as there were 12 Caesars before Domitian. I did not say it was from the Greek empire. I said the beast came from one of the divisions of the Greek empire. You said it's going to be Greece in the first sentence of the above quote. Are you saying the transgressors are only the EU? It's can't be China? Or Brazil? Maybe the whole earth are the transgressors? Are you saying that Islam could never be viewed as transgressors and so never could be full of transgressions? What scripture is there that proves the EU is the focus? The EU has many more than 10 leaders. And you're missing the truth. The 10 kings in question have no power but receive power with the beast. So that rules out any current leadership on earth. The scripture says the beast comes first, then the 10 Kings receive power. What do I care about theology? I care about what's written in scripture and history. Theologians can be, and are often, wrong about prophecy. Scripture never errs. I do grasp the concept that you think the person goes through stages. I reject that notion. I never said that the person originates in Greece. Only that is where he stages his EU army, prior to Gog/Magog. I don't know where the little horn originates from country-wise... except he comes to power within the EU. The Greek empire is long gone, as are the four break up kingdoms. The kingdom that continues into the feet is the legs of iron. The transgressors are the ten kings in Revelation 17, that give their kingdom to the beast and rule with him. That kingdom when the transgressors have come to a full, the king of fierce countenance will stand up. The EU began as the EEC by the treaty of Rome, then became the EC, then became the EU..... it has not come to a full yet, because the ten kings leaders are not in place. The EU final form is not here yet. I don't think the number of countries will shrink, but the government will become more federalized, possibly with ten leaders over ten districts, the districts comprising multi nations, structured to give balance representation population wise. The current EU leadership is ruled out I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
douggg Posted May 19, 2016 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 40 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,143 Content Per Day: 0.47 Reputation: 220 Days Won: 1 Joined: 10/18/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted May 19, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, BlindSeeker said: th and final empire that is headed for perdition and is controled by the second "other beast coming up out of the earth" which "exerciseth all the power of the first beast (which came up out of the sea) before him," which isn't referred to as a king, even though like you said, "it would have been quiet easy to have written" king if it were a king.... It doesn't have to in Revelation 13, because it is already said as kings in Revelation 17. The only thing that gives the dualistic meaning to the first beast is that it comes out of the sea and has the composite body as that of the lion, bear, and leopard. Quote Plus, the ten kings don’t give their “kingdoms” to the beast, they give their “power and strength,” such as giving of their economic and military strength, for their kingdoms stay intact until Jesus comes and destroys them as well. It is not "kingdoms" plural, but kingdom singular in the text of Revelation 17:17. 17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. Edited May 19, 2016 by douggg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlindSeeker Posted May 19, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 68 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,031 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 425 Days Won: 5 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted May 19, 2016 24 minutes ago, douggg said: It doesn't have to in Revelation 13, because it is already said as kings in Revelation 17. The only thing that gives the dualistic meaning to the first beast is that it comes out of the sea and has the composite body as that of the lion, bear, and leopard. Really? How is it you have come to such a narrow and restrictive view? Revelation 17:1 - And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: 2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. 3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. Why then doesn’t the angel address, as you say, “The only thing that gives the dualistic meaning to the first beast is that… comes out of the sea?” Why then does he fail to mention it ever so simply, but instead go onto explain the seven heads, seven mountains and seven and ten kings? What I am seeing so far is you're choosing to emphasize the parts you feel support your theory and minimizing the ones that don’t flow too smoothly along with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlindSeeker Posted May 19, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 68 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,031 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 425 Days Won: 5 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted May 19, 2016 "The composite body as that of the lion, bear, and leopard" are there to support the notion that the eighth and final beast empire is comprised a succession of empires that have an inseparable correlation to the nation of Israel, which like the scripture states regarding the beast also “was, and is not, and yet is.” That is because all those body parts mention in describing the eighth and final empire, “the lion, bear, and leopard," where each parts of those beasts in Daniel’s visions… which were undeniably four distinct empires. Each being one of the seven kingdoms and kings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
douggg Posted May 19, 2016 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 40 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,143 Content Per Day: 0.47 Reputation: 220 Days Won: 1 Joined: 10/18/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted May 19, 2016 49 minutes ago, BlindSeeker said: Really? How is it you have come to such a narrow and restrictive view? Revelation 17:1 - And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: 2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. 3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. Why then doesn’t the angel address, as you say, “The only thing that gives the dualistic meaning to the first beast is that… comes out of the sea?” Why then does he fail to mention it ever so simply, but instead go onto explain the seven heads, seven mountains and seven and ten kings? What I am seeing so far is you're choosing to emphasize the parts you feel support your theory and minimizing the ones that don’t flow too smoothly along with it. The composite description of the first beast in Revelation 13 as a beast is in similitude the first three beasts in Daniel 7. In Daniel 7 there is no scarlet colored beast. In Revelation 17, the beast is scarlet colored because it identifies the power behind the beast is Satan, the great red dragon in Revelation 12. Satan is seen by John because in Revelation 17, timestamped the first century, and Revelation 12, timestamped right before the 7 years - the actual beast, the ancient person is still in the bottomless pit which John cannot see into. It is not until Revelation 13, that the actual beast, the ancient person, as an unclean spirit, comes out of the bottomless pit to possess the mortally wounded and recovered man of sin (the former little horn). Combined they make up the 8th king. Satan himself is not the actual beast because he gives his power to the beast, Revelation 13:4. Quote 4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlindSeeker Posted May 19, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 68 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,031 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 425 Days Won: 5 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted May 19, 2016 45 minutes ago, douggg said: It is not "kingdoms" plural, but kingdom singular in the text of Revelation 17:17. 17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. Ok, let’s examine your assertion by first looking at verse 13 first which serves as introductory - (KJV) These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. (DBY) These have one mind, and give their power and authority to the beast. (YLT) these have one mind, and their own power and authority to the beast they shall give over; (RSV) These are of one mind and give over their power and authority to the beast; (ASV) These have one mind, and they give their power and authority unto the beast. (BBE) These have one mind, and they give their power and authority to the beast. (TCNT) These kings are of one mind in surrendering their power and authority to the Beast. (WEB) These have one mind, and they give their power and authority to the beast. (Oracl) These have one mind, and shall deliver their own power and authority to the beast. (MKJV) These have one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast. (MNT) These kings have one mind, and they give their power and authority to the beast. (NKJV) "These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast. (WNT) They have one common policy, and they are to give their power and authority to the Wild Beast. Note, power and authority is singular too. So when we see “kingdom” in the singular it follows in the same pattern. For each (singular) king has his own “power and authority… and kingdom” to give. Again, you have emphasized a point of singular to make it supportive of your position. For the same Greek word translated “kingdom” here was translated “kingdoms” earlier in Revelation. Revelation 11:15 - And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms <basileia> of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. Revelation 17:17 - For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom <basileia> unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. See also: Matthew 4:8 - Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms <basileia> of the world, and the glory of them; Luke 4:5 - And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms <basileia> of the world in a moment of time. Hebrews 11:33 - Who through faith subdued kingdoms <basileia>, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions. In light of these verses I see no reason to accept your assertion of their sharing a “kingdom” versus each of them having “their [own individual] kingdom” as valid or a proper understanding of the Holy Spirit implication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
douggg Posted May 19, 2016 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 40 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,143 Content Per Day: 0.47 Reputation: 220 Days Won: 1 Joined: 10/18/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted May 19, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, BlindSeeker said: "The composite body as that of the lion, bear, and leopard" are there to support the notion that the eighth and final beast empire is comprised a succession of empires that have an inseparable correlation to the nation of Israel, which like the scripture states regarding the beast also “was, and is not, and yet is.” That is because all those body parts mention in describing the eighth and final empire, “the lion, bear, and leopard," where each parts of those beasts in Daniel’s visions… which were undeniably four distinct empires. Each being one of the seven kingdoms and kings. Historically, the lion bear, leopard, and the dreadful terrible beast were four successive empires. No, each one was not of seven kingdoms in the text. In Revelation 13, in the end times, with 42 months before Jesus returns, none of those historic three kingdoms exist any more. It is only the fourth empire, the Roman empire, the legs of iron that extend into the feet in Daniel 2, that has an end times version. The EU. What is left of the other three historic empires - which the territories over layered one another - is the territory they once held. The EU will have gained control of the territory of those ancient empires and is why it is described as like unto the lion, bear, leopard. Edited May 19, 2016 by douggg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts